The Power Of Nightmares/Adam Curtis

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1039 of them)

watched all this last night, there's a lot of great stuff in it. especially episodes 1 & 2.

episode 3 i thought was the weakest... i almost thought the doc should've gone right up to sept. 11 and no further, as all the post-9/11 stuff seemed quite rushed, and most of it i'd seen before. also weak: when it suddenly became about the UK--i know this is a bbc doc, but i didn't get ANY sense of how britain got involved, or how neo-conservatism got a foothold there (while neo-c's ascension in the states was clearly and patiently spelled out). it seemed like an abrupt change.

also interesting that the word 'oil' wasn't used once in the program. obv i understand that curtis wasn't taking the syriana approach and that he didn't want to open a whole other kettle of words... but it still begged the question.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:15 (twenty years ago)

yes, quite; it could have done with an additional episode tracing Britain's position in all of this... looking at the legacy of the Thatcher-Regan years/'relationship', and examining New Labour's relation to 'neo conservatism'.

― Tom May (Tom May), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:26 (twenty years ago)

Has anyone who has seen the 3 episodes seen the film? Worth watching?

― MitchellStirling (MitchellStirling), Saturday, 7 January 2006 17:27 (twenty years ago)

what's the difference? (or is that exactly the question you're asking?)

also: century of the self is available on archive.org, in mpeg4 format. that's next on my list!

― s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 7 January 2006 19:39 (twenty years ago)

Adam Curtis is interesting bcz his different series sometimes cover the same events from alternative perspectives. Power of Nightmares sticks closely to neo-con/islamism whilst The Mayfair Set covers some of the same events but from the point of view of the expansion of the idea of 'the market' and Century of the Self covers some of the same ground from the p.o.v of psychoanalysis/public relations. Then his series about scientific positivism (that I can't recall the title of right now) does the same thing. It's best to try to see them all.

The only thing I haven't seen by him (I think) is his one off documentary abot WWII and how history is written. If anyone knows where I can get it I'd love 'em forever.

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Saturday, 7 January 2006 22:56 (twenty years ago)

Has anyone who has seen the 3 episodes seen the film? Worth watching?

I think the film is just composed of stuff culled from the three episodes.

― [tuvan throat singer's profound lyric sheet-must read again] (nordicskilla), Saturday, 7 January 2006 22:58 (twenty years ago)

I also totally agree with s1ocki w/r/t the British stuff.

― [tuvan throat singer's profound lyric sheet-must read again] (nordicskilla), Saturday, 7 January 2006 22:59 (twenty years ago)

What I meant by my question is that I've seen the 3 episodes, I wanted to know if the film is worth watching if get the chance or should I not bother. I know that it's culled from the footage. Just wondering if anyone who had seen both had a preference.

― MitchellStirling (MitchellStirling), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

watching the three episodes back to back gets a little repetitive due to the "let's review, class, shall we?" imperative of the weekly format the orig. had, as i think someone mentions above, so i'd probably prefer the film (not having seen it)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Sunday, 8 January 2006 18:53 (twenty years ago)

oooh i would kill to see the mayfair set thing.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Monday, 9 January 2006 10:49 (twenty years ago)

Theorry - you can b1t-torrent it from UK N0va or email me and I can put it on some CDs and post it to you.

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Monday, 9 January 2006 18:39 (twenty years ago)

three months pass...

According to The Guardian yesterday Adam Curtis is an associate editor type deal for Popbitch! Odd.

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Sunday, 7 May 2006 15:39 (twenty years ago)

what is it with websites that have seriously gone off the boil getting big press notices? popbitch *and* popjustice recently.

― the Enrique who acts like some kind of good taste gestapo (Enrique), Sunday, 7 May 2006 18:41 (twenty years ago)

three months pass...

the episodes are now on youtube in half hour segments.

someone else also posted the first episode in 6-8 minute segments. the section with young 70's rumsfeld is on the third segment.

and as elvis mentioned, archive.org still has a 4.4 GB complete download.

have only finished episode 1 so far. I think I'm going to space my viewing out to one per night.

― milton parker (Jon L), Monday, 28 August 2006 21:16 (nineteen years ago)

the half hour segments have been up for a while, it just only recently occured to me to search

the use of Charles Ives' music was devastating for me. I usually hear joy, pride, strength, courage in the way he used dissonance, but in this context it's all just monstrous.

― milton parker (Jon L), Monday, 28 August 2006 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

Try to space it out more than a day if possible - they were originally designed to be seen with a week gap between them

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 28 August 2006 21:24 (nineteen years ago)

six months pass...

Tonight on BBC2 at 9PM is the first part of http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=trap, Adam Curtis's follow-up to The Power of Nightmares and The Century of the Self. The documentary argues that 'http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday/story/0,,2025578,00.html'.

― James Mitchell, Sunday, 11 March 2007 12:55 (nineteen years ago)

Damn links.

― James Mitchell, Sunday, 11 March 2007 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

Dude James I had no idea! Timer recording = SET.

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:30 (nineteen years ago)

According to my DVR guide thingie, the first episode is called "F*ck You, Buddy" and the second is called "The Lonely Robot."

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:31 (nineteen years ago)

The Trap: What Happened to Our Dreams...
BBC2, Sun 11 March, 9pm, 60mins

Part 1: F**k You Buddy. A series of films by BAFTA-winning producer Adam Curtis that tells the story of the rise of today's narrow idea of freedom. It will show how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom. This model was derived from ideas and techniques developed by nuclear strategists during the Cold War. It was then taken up by genetic biologists, anthropologists, radical psychiatrists and free market economists, until it became a new system of invisible control.

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 11 March 2007 13:35 (nineteen years ago)

Well, Curtis makes beautiful, gripping programmes, but there was lots to disagree with in the first episode. Perhaps he'll develop a fuller argument over the course of the series, but I thought some of the ideas tonight were weak or, simple pessimist that I am, dishonest.

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:14 (nineteen years ago)

The programme is worth watching for the wonderful editing and composition alone. Yo La Tengo was a bit jarring, though.

I have quibbles and questions as well, but I thoroughly enjoyed it and even if I don't wind up agreeing with a lot of it in the end, I'm glad he's made it.

― Gukbe, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:44 (nineteen years ago)

Agreed. He's a great stylist, and he makes you want to engage with what he's saying.

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:48 (nineteen years ago)

It very much had the feeling of an opening slavo, I'm sure he'll elucidate more in later episodes.

― chap, Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:51 (nineteen years ago)

He didn't really do anything to counteract or disprove this idea of the bleak and paranoid human psyche - I think I came away more convinced by the game theorists!

Interesting version of the prisoners' dilemma too, where mutual betrayal is rewarded - I've only ever seen the one where mutual betrayal leads to the worst outcome for both parties.

― ledge, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:08 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, I'm still seeing the alternative of total trust and collectivism as dangerous, although I'm sure he's not pushing some kind of communism. At least I hope that isn't where this is going.

Not to say he should be coming up with an alternative. The important thing is to put the argument of the current situation out there.

Then again, I assume the worst in people, and would generally try to betray everyone for my own gains. Or even just for fun.

Game theory was successfully dealt with in Wargames already.

― Gukbe, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:14 (nineteen years ago)

Well I suspect I'm with Adam Curtis in that I do think that the idea that everyone is only acting out of self-interest is one of the most pernicious and dangerously wrong-headed ideas of all time! But he didn't do a very good job of explaining why it's so wrong.

― ledge, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:20 (nineteen years ago)

There's a distinction to be made between actually thinking that human beings are selfish and paranoid, and using that idea as an axiom to explore certain aspects of economic or social behaviour. If he was looking for examples of pessimism in psychology or economics he could've gone a good way further back than Nash or Buchanan - like to B.F. Skinner, or Adam Smith or David Ricardo.

― Noodle Vague, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:23 (nineteen years ago)

I like how he framed the game theory application into areas such as psychiatry as once idealistic, revolutionary ideas battling an entrenched aristocracy, and then spinning it around to make the results worse.

― Gukbe, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:36 (nineteen years ago)

That part was so bizarre I could barely credit it. "Our amazing and infallible new system shows us that over half of the population is psychologically dysfunctional!" - the logical response to which would be to suspect that maybe the amazing new system isn't that infallible. Yet according to this show that didn't even occur to them.

― ledge, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:41 (nineteen years ago)

The more psychology connects with the people, the more credibility it gains. People like explanations for their problems, and they're willing to pay for their cures. It seems like a win-win to me. Johns Hopkins guy seemed to understand how ludicrous it all was, though.

I'm sure there was some level of "hey, this system might be a bit shit", but for the purposes of the programme and the argument, it is irrelevant. The tests created some kind of definition of "normal", when such a thing doesn't really exist, but the people liked the idea(l) of it.

― Gukbe, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:49 (nineteen years ago)

But the tests showed that the majority of people were abnormal - that's a flat-out contradiction in terms!

― ledge, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:51 (nineteen years ago)

ok there's obv a diff between statistical normality and perceived normality of behaviour.

― ledge, Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:53 (nineteen years ago)

Also, you only need to be abnormal/pathological on one measure (say, depression) to be part of the 50% who displayed signs of mental illness. It's not really a contradiction at all.

I'm not really convinced by the connections he is drawing yet, but I think perhaps he is pacing himself better than in The Power Of Nightmares. I am very interested in pessimisic-paranoid or otherwise views of human nature as a basis for political leaning, though. It does seem to cut to the heart of things, so I'm hooked.

So far, perhaps more interesting than the ambitious connections are the times when he gets someone to baldly state that a certain ideology informed their actions. Antony Jay on Yes Minister was an eye-opener. It kind of explains why the show stands up so well - it's rooted in an idea, not in a narrow parody of the political mores of the time.

I am a little suspicious of the way Curtis always seems to focus on individuals and their influence in his histories of ideas. It makes for a good "this is the story of how" but I guess it just doesn't ring true sometimes. Still, I suppose this time he's more often saying "game theory had profound impact on so and so" than just pinning it all on John Nash or whatever. I thought maybe he overdid the Leo Strauss thing last time.

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 00:47 (nineteen years ago)

Interesting version of the prisoners' dilemma too, where mutual betrayal is rewarded - I've only ever seen the one where mutual betrayal leads to the worst outcome for both parties.

Hmm ... I'm not sure I've ever seen a version like that. The classic version has mutual betrayal causing a bad outcome for both parties, but not as bad as it would be for a betrayed truster.

A version in which mutual betrayal produced the worst possible outcome for both parties wouldn't make it much of a dilemma at all, would it? Actually, perhaps by "worst outcome for both parties" you mean aggregated worst outcome, which would be fair enough.

Anyway, looking at the [Removed Illegal Link], it's true that the version he presented is unusual, in that it's a zero-sum game, which apparently it shouldn't be. In the diamond robbery exchange, the figures in the first matrix would swap from 5 to 6.

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 01:30 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know what I did wrong with that link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 01:31 (nineteen years ago)

perhaps by "worst outcome for both parties" you mean aggregated worst outcome

YES. Thankyou for giving me a plausible get-out from my faux pas.

― ledge, Monday, 12 March 2007 08:55 (nineteen years ago)

Like most other posters I found this fascinating and thought-provoking without actually agreeing with much of it. There is a distinction, surely, between saying that game theory may be a useful predictor of human nature within a large population, and imagining that the motivations of individuals can be reduced to that kind of strategising. That some people have used game theory in a pernicious way does not make it pernicious per se.

I also thought that Curtis failed to distinguish between situations where game theory may have been the cause of behaviour, situations where it may have been part of the causal mix, and situations where it was kind of added flavour to something that would have happened in a very similar way without it. Thatcher's hostility to entrenched, paternalist institutions, for example, did not originate with game theory, although it may have been a useful extra stick to beat them with. "Yes Minister" may have been original in using game theory as a conscious underpinning: but it was comfortably within a very long satirical tradition exposing the behaviour of governmental ministers and bureaucrats as motivated by obsessive self-interest masquerading under a thin veneer of hypocrisy.

― frankiemachine, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:12 (nineteen years ago)

The question is, does Curtis use game theory in his seldom-acknowledged role as co-editor of Popbitch?

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:19 (nineteen years ago)

He's kind of the James Burke of political paranoia, isn't he? I can see how it makes watchable tv, but I'm not sure he's ultimately saying much more than that people in advanced capitalist economies become increasingly selfish.

― Stevie T, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:24 (nineteen years ago)

That explains why Popbitch are always going on about teh power of teh nightmares.

One thing always strikes me about game theory - it always leads to rubbish games. Can you imagine inviting some friends over for a game of Prisoners' Dilemma?

― The Real Dirty Vicar, Monday, 12 March 2007 11:27 (nineteen years ago)

It might be fun if the stakes were high enough. No good with matchsticks.

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

Somehow despite setting the timer for this my previously unassilable recording machine decided not to record it. :(

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:08 (nineteen years ago)

Now the machine has betrayed you once, I think they best policy would be to not set it next week.

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:11 (nineteen years ago)

Times interview on Saturday revealed the usual craven copout:
"What are your politics?"
"Well, you know, left and right are such antiquated..."
TORY!!!!

― Marcello Carlin, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:12 (nineteen years ago)

I have not had time to read all the updates, and I am off in a minute, but I thought last night's programme was not as good as the previous series, in fact it came over as quite tired. I am referring to the style rather than the content, which kind of confounded me at times, but I have "taped" it and am going to "tape" next week's epsiode too.

― PJ Miller, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:19 (nineteen years ago)

I think if you think of him as a lecturer with "this series is about", adjectival "very" and Brian Eno as his funny trademarks then the narrowness of his stylistic template becomes less bothersome.

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

motherfucker, how did i miss this.

and wai no repeats beeb?

:(

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:35 (nineteen years ago)

Can't you download it or something?

― Alba, Monday, 12 March 2007 12:50 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 939 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.